 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Kraft8/10/2000
U.S. 431, 444; People v. Superior Court (Tunch) (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 665, 673.)
b. The search of defendant's car
As he did below, defendant challenges the search of his car conducted after his arrest. He argues both that the warrant was overbroad and unsupported by probable cause and that the search exceeded the scope of the warrant and amounted to an unconstitutional general search. We conclude defendant's challenges lack merit.
We summarize the relevant legal principles governing an appellate challenge to the validity of a search warrant and the search conducted pursuant to it. The question facing a reviewing court asked to determine whether probable cause supported the issuance of the warrant is whether the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding a fair probability existed that a search would uncover wrongdoing. (Illinois v. Gates (1983) 462 U.S. 213, 238-239; People v. Camarella (1991) 54 Cal.3d 592, 600-601.) "The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the `veracity' and `basis of knowledge' of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." (Illinois v. Gates, supra, at p. 238.) In a pre-Proposition 8 case, we stated: "In determining the sufficiency of an affidavit for the issuance of a search warrant the test of probable cause is approximately the same as that applicable to an arrest without a warrant, . . . [citations], namely, whether the facts contained in the affidavit are such as would lead a man of ordinary caution or prudence to believe, and conscientiously to entertain, a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused." (Skelton v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.3d 144, 150.) The magistrate's determination of probable cause is entitled to deferential review. (Illinois v. Gates, supra, at p. 236; see Skelton v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 153 [magistrate's determination "is to be sustained by reviewing courts as long as there was a `substantial basis' for his conclusion that the legitimate objects of the search were `probably present' on the specified premises"].)
The warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment provides that no warrant may issue except those "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.; Walter v. United States (1980) 447 U.S. 649, 656-657, fn. 8.) The constitutional requirement of particularity protects against "general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings," but in a complex case resting on the piecing together of " `many bits of evidence,' " the warrant properly may be more generalized than in a simpler investigation resting on more direct evidence. (Andresen v. Maryland (1976) 427 U.S. 463, 480, 481, fn. 10; People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 1043.) Whether the description in a warrant of property to be seized is sufficiently definite is a question of law subject to independent review by the appellate court. (Thompson v. Superior Court (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 101, 108.)
Searching officers may seize items specifically named in a valid warrant, as well as other items in plain view, provided the officers are lawfully located in the place from which they view the items, and the incriminating character of the items as contraband or evidence of a crime is immediately apparent. (Horton v. California (1990) 496 U.S. 128, 136; see Guidi v. Superior Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 1, 6.)
Later in the morning hours of the day of defendant's arrest, the prosecution obtained a warrant for the search of his car by means of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|